Monday, August 06, 2007
SOMETHING LIGHTER
Nancy Pelosi's Earmark For a "Novel Viral Biowarfare Agent." No, Really. (UPDATED)
Upon further review, this deserves its own post. I don't like earmarks to begin with; I'm slackjawed at news of Nancy Pelosi's earmark for a new biowarfare agent (SEE UPDATE BELOW). No, I'm not making that up.
Some companies stand to gain from Pelosi's earmarks. The California Democrat has won funding for six companies in a 2008 defense funding measure. One is a $4 million request to develop a ``novel viral biowarfare agent'' for Prosetta Corp., based in her San Francisco district. Tom Higgins, the company's chief executive officer, says he talked to the Speaker's staff directly rather than hiring a lobbyist and hasn't given money to her campaign. ``We're just a little company,'' he says.
As I said below, I'm curious about how lefties feel about the House Speaker giving a little handout to these guys if I'm a bit weirded out by U.S. research into new viral biowarfare agents. I can understand research in how to treat and mitigate the effects of bioweapons, but do we really need any more of these? And how, exactly, do you make a sales pitch for a "novel viral biowarfare agent?" What, anthrax and ebola are cliche?
See Update below.
UPDATE: A sharp-eyed reader notes that the CEO "served on the Senior Staff of President Jimmy Carter’s White House."
I also note from the above comment that the CEO emphasizes that they didn't use a lobbyist. Let me get this straight - developing a new bioweapon is kosher, so long as you don't hire a lobbyist to get the funding?
KEY UPDATE: Just exchanged e-mails with the reporter on this story, Brian Faler. He says the corporation is "trying to figure out ways to treat viruses used in warfare." Okay, that makes a lot more sense - just wish the original article had made that a little clearer.
My apologies to readers.
08/06 02:55 PM
Share
